![]() |
|
Current Events Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools
![]() |
Display Modes
![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
To shreds, you say?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: in the house and on the street-how many, many feet we meet!
Posts: 18,449
|
Quote:
I was perhaps unclear. When I said democrats I was referring to voters and not to politicians who are all filthy liars wearing different outfits and who have 'no principle[s] but untrammeled, undemocratic power.'
__________________
The internet is a hateful stew of vomit you can never take completely seriously. - Her Fobs |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
erika
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
|
I very, very highly recommend the It Could Happen Here podcast from last year. conflict journalist Robert Evans lays out a really plausible (and so far eerily prescient) path towards a violent second civil war, and lays out steps that could be taken to help avoid it.
if it does come to a shooting war, it's likely to look less like the first civil war, with two clear sides with their own governments and territory, and a lot more like Syria, with many sides and factions vying for territory and security. it also won't be drawn along dem/rep lines - I can imagine a coalition of centrist Republicans and Democrats trying to hold the "center" politically (which is already the Biden campaign's strategy), but I can't imagine the Democrats organizing any legitimate resistance. More likely imo is organized left-wing (not liberal, leftist) groups organizing cities, or parts of cities, in "community self-defense" against the right-wing dominionist and fascist militias that have been prepping for exactly that opportunity. whether or not the military/ "government forces" get majorly involved is a big question, but I find it hard to imagine that the average soldier would be willing to fire on Americans.
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 20,012
|
This is Mr. Clod's opinion as well, and it seems utterly bizarre to me. I don't find it hard to imagine AT ALL. Enforcers in every city are firing on Americans right now, just ones they've deemed destructive criminals. Yeah, they're not going to march into your suburban house and slaughter you on your couch--but if they think you're with "the other side?" Or if they think your house is secretly a resistance base and needs to be targeted? Soldiers will absolutely fire on people they no longer consider to be Americans.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
erika
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
|
Quote:
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 20,012
|
But if sides are being taken, is the average soldier going to be more, or less, comfortable shooting a CBP agent compared to a civilian of unknown motives? Some will desert, I agree--a good percentage of cops have already resigned in the past few months--but I don't think any of them are going to take a stand against anybody in a uniform.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Snowflake
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Dystopia
Posts: 13,136
|
Remember, protestors are Antifa, and Antifa are terrorists. The US military has already been doing urban warfare against civilian terrorists for a long time.
__________________
****************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
erika
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
|
Quote:
and again, i sure fucking hope i'm wrong!!!!! i would LOVE to be wrong. because if i'm right and there is a shooting war (more than, like, there already is), a lot of my friends are going to die. i'm probably going to die. even if i don't stand up for my community and like, be on the front lines, between my health issues and my identity, i've got a pretty bad chance of coming through things fine. but from where I sit the opportunity to turn back the tide of violence seems to be slipping away. and thats unbelievably scary.
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
I love it when a plan comes together.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,793
|
Quote:
Insurrection Act of 1807 Posse Comitatus Act To do otherwise (like breaking apart) would leave the country open to attack by foreign powers which would be contrary to our military personnel's raison d'être. There can be worse things than civil war. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
erika
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
|
which is why i don't think the brass would, like, follow orders if ordered to deploy the military directly. though, i should clarify that i was also kinda lumping the national guard in with the military there. i think it'll be complicated, but i find it hard to believe that actual military units will be deploying against americans.
ex-military militias with stolen weapons, maybe, but...
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
I love it when a plan comes together.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,793
|
Law enforcement can generally handle them; but if not, the Governor's of some States (and of course the President) have something most people aren't aware of... there's a decentralized National Guard Special Forces unit (a.k.a. Green Berets). It has combat experience and is trained in both insurgency and counter-insurgency operations.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
erika
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
|
i mean, the sort of, worst-case scenario i'm talking about is, like, assuming things get past where law enforcement can handle them. if things got to the point of open conflict, etc.
its completely fair if you think things could never, ever get that bad and i hope you're right but i'm increasingly convinced that that's not outside the realm of possibility in the near future. (there's also a whole other conversation to be had about, how much certain types of law enforcement looks the other way or tacitly approves of certain types of militias as opposed to others, but thats a whole nother ball of wax)
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
I love it when a plan comes together.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,793
|
From my first link:
Quote:
The Law of Land Warfare would apply: --The laws of war are the rules respecting war- fare with which, according to international law, belligerents and neutrals are bound to comply. ' The rules of land warfare had their origin in the practices and usages of war which gradually grew into customs or were embodied in conventions. The only real concern I see would be a President who wouldn't stop belligerence from escalating beyond law enforcements ability to contain it. That hasn't happened so far. Are you having reservations about Biden being willing to do that if he's elected? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
erika
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
|
and, again, my assertion is that, i think the military is more likely to fracture than to actually be used to effectively "address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy".
And you and I clearly disagree on whether or not violence is likely to escalate past law enforcement's ability to contain it, mostly because I think law enforcement is part of the problem rather than a solution. I don't wanna derail this whole thread arguing for police abolition, but you and i clearly don't agree on whether law enforcement is more likely to quell or inflame violence. and, yes, i abso-fucking-lutely have questions about Biden's ability to quell belligerence. And Trump's. But I also have questions about any president's ability, not willingness, to do that. My worry is that things are past the point where enough of the country will consider the election valid, no matter who wins. its not inevitable but i don't think that any of the people or groups who could avert things are likely to actually do so. (and if the election happens and its all smooth and everything goes back to the status quo and violence stops and things are just fine i will absolutely love to hear your i-told-you-sos! i am not rooting for violence and i will be so relieved if it does not occur!)
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
erika
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
|
basically: its fine if you think that the existing institutions of government, law enforcement, and military power are sufficient to prevent widespread violence! you might be right! but i think the ongoing and worsening crisis could overwhelm and degrade those institutions a lot more easily than you expect.
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
people never figure they'll be shot by their own side
but it took like a week until CHAZ/CHOP devolved to the point where insiders were getting shot when you fight authority, new authority appears. it is inevitable. it is built in good luck |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|